44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2022 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I know that members will be disappointed to hear this, but I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.
We are at a critical time in this nation's history. We hear a lot of, frankly, intentional efforts by other parties to misstate the Conservative Party of Canada's position, but I think it is important to put some clear things on the record about what we are proposing in terms of the response to this pandemic.
Number one, Conservatives oppose the federal mandates. That is why we put forward a motion calling on the government to put forward a plan to end federal mandates. Now, why do we oppose these mandates? It is because they do not make sense, because they are not rooted in science, because they do not help us fight COVID-19, and because they infringe on the rights and liberties of Canadians.
Let us talk about the truckers' mandate. These are people who work alone inside of their trucks. They have to abide by all provincial regulations when it comes to masking and accessing restaurants. Whatever the rules are in the province or state they are in, they have to abide by those rules just like everyone else. An exemption for truckers crossing the border was in place through the entire pandemic up until January, and then the government brought in this additional punitive measure, targeting these frontline workers who had served our country so ably throughout the pandemic and for a long time before. We oppose the truckers' mandate.
We have consistently called for vaccine mandates when it comes to air travel, train travel or the public service, and we have talked about legitimate exceptions for people so that they can have some level of autonomy and choice. That means getting a rapid test before getting on a plane is a reasonable alternative when it makes sense to have that in place. Many public servants throughout the pandemic have worked from home, so a vaccine mandate for firing people, removing people from their jobs, simply because they are making a personal health choice when they are already working from home just does not make sense. Conservatives have been clear on a position that I think is rooted in science and evidence in opposing these federal mandates.
The other thing that we as Conservatives oppose are the efforts by this government, in particular this Prime Minister, to demonize friends and neighbours who may have made different choices about their personal health. As other members have said, every person has their own story. Every person certainly has the responsibility to take the measures they can to protect those around them, but people have to make those decisions individually, and we do not believe in being the kind of country where people are compelled against their will or on pain of job loss to take a vaccination that they still have questions about.
I hear Liberal members now talking about the tone, about bringing down the temperature and about inflammatory comments. The Prime Minister of Canada asked the question, “Do we tolerate these people?” Those were the Prime Minister's words. He talked about not tolerating people. He will call all kinds of names and put in place any kind of policy measure to squeeze those who are making different kinds of personal health choices. It is not helpful, frankly, in persuading people about any issue, to try to demonize and “otherize” those who are making a different choice about themselves. Therefore, we oppose the federal mandates and we oppose the clear efforts by this government, as called out by members of its caucus, to polarize the conversation and demonize those who have made a different choice.
We have also said, and I have said consistently, that we support the right to protest and we support the message of those who are coming to protest on the issue of the federal mandates. Thousands of Canadians who have been forced out of their jobs, have lost businesses, are in a dire position because their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families are threatened, whose mental health is threatened and are experiencing things they have not experienced before have chosen to come and protest. Many have not ever come to protest before. We support the right of people to protest. We support people's message when it comes to saying that these mandates are fundamentally flawed, they are not based on science and they infringe on individual liberty.
At the same time, we have also been consistently clear in opposing the blockading of critical infrastructure as part of a protest. The great thing about the Conservative Party of Canada is that we have been entirely consistent in opposing blockading critical infrastructure in every case. We have called for additional legislative tools consistently for years when it comes to issues around blockading critical infrastructure, and it does not matter what the cause is. If the cause is federal mandates, if the cause is Idle No More, if the cause is opposing a pipeline, if the cause is trying to create a multi-heritage month—a cause near and dear to my heart—or whatever the cause is, people should not be blockading critical infrastructure. Conservatives have always said this—
891 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I first wish to thank the Bloc Québécois members for voting for our motion.
It is too bad we did not have more support from other members in other parties.
The motion was clear in calling on the government to put forward a plan to end all mandates, and of course many Canadians would like to see that plan involve unwinding these mandates as quickly as possible, especially when many of these mandates were not based on science and did not make sense in the first place. There was never a reason to have this trucker mandate in place. They are people who work alone and had an exemption throughout the entirety of the pandemic up until January. These things were never based on science in the first place. The government has no data to justify its decision to say someone has to be vaccinated and that a rapid test is not a legitimate alternative for air travel.
These are the points we have made. I think it is legitimate and right for us to be clear and principled in opposing these mandates while not—
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is not often we get to go twice in a debate like this, so I am appreciative of that.
The hon. member talked about the science of this. The motion we put forward last week called for the government to put forward a plan, give us some benchmarks or give us some timelines, and show us the science of when we will break out of this pandemic and when we will be able to lift the mandates.
Would the hon. member like to tell us, according to her plan, how many people would have to be vaccinated in her ideal world for the mandates to be dropped and for life to return to some semblance of normal?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, two weeks to flatten the curve, do we remember that being said? Two weeks to flatten the curve is what we all signed up for around here back in the spring of 2020, two years ago.
Here we are two years later and we still do not have a plan for how we are going to pull out of this pandemic. We put forward a motion last week calling on the government to provide us with a plan. We left it fairly wide open. We asked for a plan for how we would end the mandates and return to some semblance of normal.
The Liberals joined with their coalition partners, the NDP, and voted that motion down, so here we are without a plan for how to end the pandemic. We heard about the vaccines and we called for rapid tests, which is what we are talking about tonight, but here we are without a plan.
The Liberals could have voted for our motion earlier today and could have put forward a plan. We gave them a month to come up with a plan. They have essentially had two years to come up with a plan, and one of the major frustrations from people across the country is that there does not seem to be a plan. We seem to be flying by the seat of our pants.
There is also no humility in this to say that the government actually does not know. That would be an acceptable plan to give, but the government keeps saying it is following the science. Show us the science. Use the science and build a plan. Give us a percentage. We have heard things like “when 70% of the population is vaccinated”, “when 80% of the population is vaccinated” or “when 90% of the population is vaccinated”. Those are all nice targets, but that is kind of like shooting a hole in the target and then painting the bull's eye around the hole we just shot.
If we do not know what the target is, it is pretty hard to have a plan. It is hard to have an idea. As well, the goalposts keep changing. The target keeps changing. The bullet hole is there and we have painted the bull's eye around it. That is essentially where we are at with this whole COVID-19 pandemic.
It has been two years. We have seen jurisdictions around the world removing their vaccination mandates, removing their travel restrictions and opening up their sports arenas. They are watching hockey again and having a good time. Here we are in Canada behind plexiglass and masks and all of these things while other parts of the world are—
462 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech. Everything the member said was true. It was factual.
Everyone is talking about lifting vaccine mandates and getting back to taking care of ourselves, and we have seen—
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
